Observational studyColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2026
Outcomes of a novel multidisciplinary approach to delivering sacral neuromodulation services away from the operating theatre.
Observational study in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAt this tertiary referral hospital, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) evaluation procedures for faecal incontinence (FI) were performed by surgeons in theatre, using general or local anaesthetic. Growing referrals and limited theatre access prompted service reform. A clinical scientist multidisciplinary team member completed bespoke training to perform procedures in outpatients using local anaesthetic. This observational study compares outcomes of clinical scientist-led (CSL) and surgeon-led (SL) evaluation procedures, including clinical success and complications.
methodDemographics and clinical data from patients who underwent CSL procedures were retrospectively compared with patients who underwent SL procedures between 2009 and 2023. A clinically successful evaluation phase outcome was defined as >50% less FI episodes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.
resultsTwo hundred eleven patients underwent SNM evaluation procedures: 32 in the CSL cohort and 179 in the SL cohort. Patients were predominantly female (93.8%). Median age was 57.1 years. Surgeons mostly used local anaesthetic (61.5%). Technical procedure success was comparable (96.9% vs. 95.5%, p = 1.000) as were successful clinical outcomes (67.7% vs. 69.0%, p = 0.956). Clinically unsuccessful and equivocal evaluation phase outcomes were equivalent (29.0% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.956; 3.2% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.956). Evaluation phase complication rates were similar (3.0% vs. 5.8%, p = 1.000).
conclusionWe introduce the first clinical outcomes of protocolised delivery of outpatient PNE procedures for FI by a clinical scientist. Comparing clinical outcomes with the traditional SL approach in theatre, technical and clinical success are maintained. Crucially, this unique service delivery method is safe for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.